The concept of corporate personhood is a contentious subject with most Americans. It is hated by individualists from the left and right alike and often considered proof of America's unfair bias in service of corporations. But, this controversial concept might get you out of a lot of future traffic tickets.
Google's new self driving cars are nearly flawless and design, however a few traffic violations are bound to occur. For example, in Mountain View where googles self driving cars have logged over 10,000 miles, one car encountered a tricky situation. The car ahead with making a left turn when the light turned yellow. Google's car being already in the intersection had to decide whether to make the turn on yellow knowing the light would turn red for trying back out of the intersection. Google's car made what the passengers thought was the safest decision. It went ahead and turned, and it did not receive a ticket. But, this brought up some interesting questions about the legality of such split-second driving decisions. When the first Google car inevitably receives a traffic ticket, who will pay the ticket? The company who issues the car, the person who designs the automating system or the person sitting in the driver seat? Interestingly Google seems to think that Google should pay for the ticket. Their official stance is that the person sitting on the driver seat has no responsibility for actually driving the car. This seems to make sense, but the DMV says that the person responsible for any moving vehicle is specifically the operator. The vague term operator does not necessarily exclude companies but it seems to certainly exclude any nonpersons. Google is now using the concept of corporate personhood to argue that Google will be the responsible party. The dmv seems flexible enough In their interpretations of the word operator that they mostly agree with google. I find it interesting that Google is so intent on paying for traffic violations. I also think that the concept of corporate personhood is becoming more and more important in our society, as machines become more and more involved in our day to day lives. Hopefully. issues such as these will be dealt with thoughtfully and carefully, because each problem humanity solves with a new rule sets a precedent for all problems that follow.
Byron Otis-I'm not sure whether the concept of corporate personhood has to come into this at all. Can something be an "operator" without being, specifically, a person? I believe so. Technically, the operator is a program. But this program was designed by the people who work for Google. It would be unreasonable to have Google's employees pay for this, so it makes sense to me to have Google itself pay the tickets.
ReplyDeleteThe operator under the vehicle code definition is the "person who started the vehicle." I should have mentioned that.
ReplyDeleteThis is why I think people should drive...
DeleteI would hate to be in a world where everything is done automatically.
ReplyDelete